This
essay was inspired by many years of interaction with the public, friends, allies
and critics on the issues of free energy, healing the planet and attempts to communicate
the idea of an abundance-based paradigm. If we cannot comprehend an abundance-based
paradigm, we cannot pursue one. The most formidable barrier to comprehension
seems to be assumptions so deeply ingrained that they are invisible to those holding
them. Scarcity-based ideologies are only ideas that were fed us, and we can choose
other ideas. Humanity’s survival may depend on it.

Today’s Dominant Ideologies are Scarcity-Based

Thomas
Kuhn was the most prominent writer to begin using the modern definition of
paradigm, which describes the framework that science operates within.
The term can also describe the frameworks girding other disciplines. Systematic
thinking is older than civilization, and today’s various systems of thought are
sometimes called paradigms, ideologies or the “isms.” All ideologies have a set
of foundational assumptions. The ideologies that currently dominate American thinking include:

Nationalism

Capitalism

Organized Religion

Scientism

Materialism

Rationalism

Those are all based on the scarcity principle
because they exalt one group at the expense of others; the first three do so quite
obviously, while the last three are subtler. Other scarcity-based ideologies have been
under siege in America during my lifetime, such as racism and sexism, largely
due to the relatively high standard of living that Americans enjoy. Abundance-based
paradigms can make all scarcity-based ideologies obsolete.

There
are striking similarities between the prevailing dynamic for how civilizations
have collapsed and a compelling alternative dynamic for how the human body succumbs
to degenerative disease. Those dynamics can help illuminate the path to free
energy.

Joseph
Tainter proposed today’s favored dynamic for why civilizations have collapsed.
Civilizations generally appeared when people became sedentary, which was dependent
on a local and stable energy source. Such stationary sources usually relied on
the domestication of plants and animals,
although not always, such as with the Pacific Northwest culture that relied on
salmon swimming up rivers. The energy surplus provided by domestication and human
concentration in settled areas allowed for specialization, and professions developed.
Tainter described the increasing specialization and its attendant “advances” as
the “investment in complexity” which was paid with the coin of energy, which has
powered all ecosystems and economic systems for all time. In ancient civilizations,
food delivered most energy. After studying all proposed explanations for collapsed
civilizations, Tainter concluded that collapse was due to energy scarcity. When
a hungry urban specialist returned to the countryside for greater food security,
the city lost some of its collective skill. When the trickle of exiting specialists
became a flood, often taking with them anything they could carry, the urban environments
began to collapse. The specialists reverted to more “primitive” behavior in order
to survive, which doomed the civilization.

Louis
Pasteur’sgerm theory of disease is a cornerstone of modern biology
and medicine. However, there is persuasive evidence that Pasteur’s germ theory
is a flawed plagiarism of his contemporary, Antoine
Béchamp. One consequence of Béchamp’s discoveries was a different dynamic
to describe life and decay processes. During the 20th century, a number of scientists, either following Béchamp’s
lead or pursuing their research independently, discovered similar if not identical
dynamics. Those discoveries are partly based on viewing life processes with microscopes
(1, 2) that achieve
resolutions considered “impossible” by Isaac Newton’s optical theory. The findings
of those microscopes are virtually irrefutable, particularly by a scientific establishment
that refuses to look through them, in a situation
that recalls Galileo’s detractors refusing to look through his telescope to see
Jupiter’s moons.

The dynamic first noted by Béchamp
and further developed by his professional descendants begins with the understanding
that multi-cellular life forms are made possible by specialization. When life
was unicellular, each cell did it all: acquiring energy and other nutrients, maintaining
its metabolism, expelling waste and living. The human body is based on specialized
cells. When those specialized cells receive proper nutrition (most nutrition
is energy) they perform their specialized task. However, as Gaston Naessens documented long ago, when cells
do not receive proper nutrition, they begin losing
their specialization. If the body fails to live up to the “deal,” those specialized
cells lose their specialization, revert to more “primitive” behaviors to survive,
and even begin robbing nutrients from their neighbors, becoming biological brigands.
Every degenerative disease that Naessens studied had the same sub-cellular dynamic,
the most common outward manifestation being cancer.

When
civilizations collapsed, attempts to preserve them included coercing specialists
to remain at their urban posts. However, providing them what they needed was
both the cause and the cure. Coercing the specialist dealt with the symptom instead
of the cause. Similarly, today’s orthodox cancer treatments attack those former
specialists that reverted to more primitive behaviors in their quest for survival.
Naessens’s brilliant treatmentfeeds
the cancer cells instead of attacking them.

Symptom
suppression always fails when the cause remains unaddressed. In crisis situations,
suppressing symptoms may be appropriate, but cures address causes. A stressed
body produces degenerative disease, whether from poor nutrition (dead
food is responsible for most poor nutrition), imbibing caffeine, nicotine, alcohol and other stimulants/depressants,
industrial pollutants (fluoride and many others), psychological
stress and other stresses such as inhaling smoke. Western medicine primarily
suppresses symptoms. The USA’s medical establishment rarely compensates people
for preventing disease. Why sell prevention by the ounce, when “cure”
can be sold by the pound? Virtually every alternative cancer treatment that abandons
the “attack-the-tumor” paradigm of Western medicine
is outlawed in the United States, and they
are almost all harmless, cheap and vastly more effective than surgery, radiation and chemotherapy. Western medicine
has yet to adopt the paradigm that deals with causes, and even attacks
and suppresses it. However, the most important issue is not that Western medicine
is about earth’s most lucrative racket that only provides symptom suppression,
but that nearly everybody plays along, giving their power
away to that establishment. The system also indoctrinates people into ceding
their power to it. The only viable solution is people accepting responsibility
for their health and practicing prevention.

Whether
it was an urban specialist returning to the farm or a specialized cell turning
cancerous, each specialist bore some responsibility for the system’s failure.
Blind specialization, without seeing the whole, is part of the problem. R. Buckminster
Fuller observed that specialization in science has served to keep scientists controlled
by the ruling class. Activists must distinguish the forests from trees, branches
from roots, and address causes instead of symptoms in
order to be effective. Not only could such efforts forestall
the looming catastrophe, it could begin looking a
lot like heaven on earth if relatively few people began directing their efforts
toward causes instead of symptoms.

Conspiracismand Structuralism

Global
civilization is obviously in crisis, and earth’s environment is increasingly precarious.
In the summer of 2008, the global economy is being buffeted by financial and earthly
storms, with financial and crop failures gaining momentum, oil is nearing $150
per barrel, gold is nearing $1,000 per ounce, and food prices are skyrocketing.
Mainstream analyses are plagued by the assumptions supporting the dominant ideologies
(capitalism, nationalism, scientism, etc.), and have limited validity. For instance,
it was easy to foresee the economic catastrophe unfolding
today, although few mainstream pundits saw it coming, and those blindsided by
it are already dispensing the standard bromides of “all is well,” as extraordinary
measures are enacted (such as the world’s national banks’ and governments’ interventions
in 2008), or “the storm has passed,” before it has even hit shore.

Two
schools of non-mainstream analytics have existed for many years, and are generally
associated with the radical “left” and “right.” Noam
Chomsky and friends epitomize the radical left.
Their analyses are characterized by careful scholarship and rejecting the assumptions
that gird nationalism, capitalism and organized religion. There are almost no scientists in their ranks, but their
work uses a scientific approach that examines societal structures. Their style
of analytics is called structural or institutional analysis.

The
radical right’s analytics tend to focus on elite activities, particularly when
they act in concert and secrecy to manipulate the world’s political-economic systems.
Those elites usually act through the world’s dominant institutions, which they
may nominally control, but do so for private ends. Such analytics are often called
“conspiracy theories” or conspiracism, with those labels usually applied pejoratively.

Those differences exemplify two competing schools of
thought: the “mass movement” and “great man” theories of history. Mohandas K.
Gandhi led India to freedom from Great Britain,
and did it with fasting and non-violent civil disobedience. While he was a leader
without peer, the millions who followed him provided the momentum that broke Britain’s
grip. However, Gandhi did not invent non-violent civil disobedience; India adopted
non-violent forms of resistance only after the British repressed the so-called
Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 with extreme violence. Also, British weakness was the key
dynamic in their loss of empire, which also happened to France
and other colonial powers weakened by World War II. While Gandhi was indeed a
great leader, global political-economic dynamics provided him the opportunity
for success. Were Gandhi’s virtues, the movement he led, or British imperial
weakness responsible for India gaining its independence? The “great man” theory
would credit Gandhi. The “mass movement” theory would credit the millions behind
him. A more comprehensive political-economic analysis might give greater weight
to the imperial trajectory that resulted in British weakness.

People
atop steeply hierarchical economic/political/social systems often do act
in unison, in secrecy, and quite unethically and even criminally. Here are some
examples.

In 1782, as the American
Revolution was ending, George Washington designed the plan that the American government
immediately adopted to defraud American Indians of their lands. Washington became
America’s richest man by private land grabs, and led an army into the Ohio River
Valley in 1754 in a land-grabbing attempt. He was
captured by the French and their Indian allies, which helped
trigger the world’s first war that was fought upon multiple continents, which
foreshadowed the World Wars of the 20th century. Succeeding American
presidents such as Thomas Jefferson directly followed
Washington’s strategy while never disclosing that plan to its victims. Washington’s
plan was his crowning achievement; he designed what is arguably history’s greatest swindle, but anybody searching
for a discussion of it in the standard biographies of America’s greatest Founding
Father will be disappointed. Washington’s plan and its execution comprise an
abundantly documented conspiracy that the American government executed for nearly
a century, until there were no more Indian lands remaining to steal.

As I learned from somebody who received inside information
from John Tower in December 1963, Lee Harvey
Oswald did not murder John F. Kennedy. Oswald was a military intelligence operative
working under E. Howard Hunt’s direction to stage a fake assassination attempt
on JFK and frame Fidel Castro, to justify invading Cuba. Operation Northwoods was either a parent or
parallel operation - the Pentagon’s counterpart of what Hunt developed for the
CIA. Hunt’s operation was compromised and JFK was killed. While it is of dubious
importance to discover who was behind it, what is important was how the
American establishment covered it up, beginning with the fiction known as the
Warren Commission’s report. Unlike Washington’s plan, there is no publicly available
paper trail regarding those behind JFK’s murder.

Panama won its “freedom” from Colombia
in what may be history’s most artificial “revolution.” A syndicate headed by
J.P. Morgan bankrolled the so-called revolution. The largest payment the USA’s
government ever made to that time was buying the land for the Panama Canal from
Morgan’s syndicate. While portions of the lucrative conspiracy have been uncovered,
the Morgan syndicate went to great lengths to hide its involvement, with massive
document destruction and other machinations. Historians have difficulty determining
how deeply the conspiracy went with the sitting president, Teddy Roosevelt. Morgan’s
partner in the syndicate was William Nelson Cromwell, whose law firm had
a heavy hand in Latin America during subsequent generations.

In
those situations, elites directed the American government to undertake actions
on behalf of private interests. Hundreds of year ago, Adam
Smith described the phenomenon of polities reluctantly relinquishing lands
largely due to the private profit opportunities available to those controlling
the government. The primary difference between a “conspiracy theory” and “structural
analysis” regarding those operations is how much documentation is available, and
whether the USA government’s employees ran the operation in their official capacity
or while wearing their “private interest” hat.

Also,
participants in conspiratorial events can often appear in subsequent events, or
their relatives can. For instance, Cromwell eventually handed his empire to his
handpicked successor, John Foster Dulles, who became Dwight Eisenhower’s Secretary
of State. John’s brother Allen ran the CIA under
Eisenhower, and the Dulles brothers mounted the operation to overthrow the Guatemalan government in 1954 on behalf
of United Fruit, which they had a financial stake in. A year earlier, the Dulles
brothers helped overthrow the Iranian government on behalf of American
oil companies. Teddy Roosevelt’s grandson Kermit staged the Iranian coup. Kermit’s
operation was too easily traced to the USA’s government, so the CIA and friends
have been privatizing American-based covert action
ever since, making it even more difficult for analysts to assess the documentation.
A family member was a privatized covert action soldier and almost tried recruiting
me into the family “business,” which I reveal publicly for the first time here.[1] JFK fired Allen Dulles for the
botched Bay of Pigs operation (which Hunt ran, as he did the Watergate burglary, and he also helped overthrow
the Guatemalan government), but Allen got his vengeance by sitting on the Warren
Commission, obscuring the CIA’s involvement. Key records of John Foster Dulles’s
activities while running Cromwell’s empire have either been destroyed or remain private. How deeply
those conspiratorial activities went, and many others like it, is anybody’s guess.

Those
surviving such suppression efforts usually encounter a humanity in deep denial,
with their experiences dismissed. Those facile dismissals would resonate with
the few Jews who escaped Hitler’s concentration camps early in World War II. Their fellow Jews generally denied the
validity of the escapees’ experiences. It all sounded too fantastic, and those
Jews did not want to believe it was true. Many discovered the hard way
how true those tales were. My former partner survived prison and innumerable
hardships on his journey. Numerous media reports have covered
his journey: in print, on the Internet, and repeatedly on national television.
Every critical account I have seen was filled with lies and intentional distortions,
and few were clever lies - most insulted the intelligence of anybody possessing
the slightest acquaintance with the facts. Even my partner’s fellow free energy
travelers often repeat the media’s disinformation,
verbatim, when the facts are easily obtainable.

I
have never seen a sizeable audience constructively engage the free energy milieu.
Most never move beyond denial, or do not comprehend how the industrialized world
is almost entirely dependent on energy. Those who understand the energy issue
and overcome denial often fall prey to conspiracism, fixating on organized suppression,
when it is a minor aspect of the dynamic. Few make it past those mental/emotional
pitfalls to attain a productive understanding of the issue. Every
free energy activist/inventor whose efforts I respect is, to one degree or another,
a mystic, as were nearly
all of the twentieth century’s greatest physicists. Mystics tend to reject
dogma, whether it is religious, scientific, economic, etc. They discovered something
inside themselves that provided their insight, not external sources.

The ideological divide separating conspiracy theorists
from structural analysts has roots in our reality’s bedrock assumptions. A conspiracy
theorist believes that elites act in concert and secretly to achieve a desired
outcome. A structural analyst believes that elites need not act conspiratorially
toward that desired outcome; the mechanical and “natural” workings of our institutions
ensure the result, with those elites rarely aware of the broader ramifications
of their self-interested efforts. According to the world’s religions, somebody
or something consciously created the universe. According to scientific cosmology,
in the beginning was the Big Bang, and the “laws of physics” and mechanistic evolution
led to today’s situation on planet earth, with nobody designing anything or creating
it. That same divide separates evolutionists and creationists (often called “intelligent
design” theorists today). The conflict between structural analysts and conspiracy
researchers is merely a modern version of a very old debate between two lopsided
perspectives.

As Jim Hightower once said, our
societies are not organized by left and right, but by top-down. The so-called
left and right have criticized each other for many years, with “conspiracy theories”
being derided by the radical left, particularly when leftists begin subscribing
to them (called “fragmenting the left”) and the right calling Chomsky and friends
conspiratorial “left gatekeepers.” It is an ideological
battle.

Beginning with the ancient Greeks
and continuing with European scholars and scientists after the Greek teachings
were reintroduced to the West via Islam, the practice
of using logic and observation eventually formed the rationalist-materialist paradigm
that dominates science today. However, the greatest physicists did not subscribe
to it. A cornerstone to developing that mechanistic paradigm was eliminating
consciousness. Today’s science views the universe as a huge mechanism, and discovering
the mechanism is about the only mystery worth pursuing. Eliminating consciousness
was an ideological assumption. Ironically, our consciousness is all we
know. When a teenager, I was shown that the chemical/mechanical models
of consciousness that prevail in science today are inadequate, which is easily demonstrated.

Once the materialistic blinders fall away, a new universe
opens up, but not one where organized religions flourish. Organized religion
has often been the mystic’s most persistent assailant. Jesus and Buddha challenged
the religious orthodoxies of their day. As Ken
Wilber made the case, there is no inherent conflict between science and religion,
but between the genuine and the bogus. The bogus aspects of both are their authoritarian
and dogmatic facets. The worship of the mechanism has been likened to dissecting
a computer and describing all its parts and how they work and interact, but then
concluding that nobody built the computer and that it came together by accident.

Erwin Schroedinger
wrote that science has nothing to say about our consciousness
and its source or destination. Werner Heisenberg stated that science possessed
validity only within narrow parameters, and when it began playing philosopher
and generalizing about a phenomenon’s source, it lost its validity. Albert
Einstein wrote that “cosmic religious feeling” motivated the greatest scientific
and religious geniuses of history, and that whatever intelligence designed the
universe reduced all systematic human thinking to insignificance. James Jeans
wrote that the success of relativity and quantum mechanics, the two pillars of
today’s physics, led to the realization that today’s science is not in contact
with reality, but is still watching Plato’s shadows
on the wall.

To banish consciousness from
science limited the territory that science can explore. To assume
that consciousness is merely the byproduct of chemistry, somehow reaching its
flower with the appearance of human beings, reeks of human egocentrism. To deny
consciousness’s existence apart from its physical manifestations is positivism
and something that the greatest physicists had no use for. The rationalist-materialist
paradigm is a religion, and a rather flimsy one for those expecting the
universe’s mysteries to all be revealed within its framework. Many brilliant
minds have committed the logical fallacy of classifying
anything not materialistic as irrational. Similarly, intuition and flashes of
creative insight, no matter how brilliant and accurate (1,
2), are not phenomena that can be rationally or materialistically
dissected.

The ideological contrast between
the rationalist-materialist paradigm and the notion that consciousness resides
independently of its physical manifestations (and may even create physical
reality) explains a great deal of the mutual antagonism between structural analysts
and conspiracy researchers. While conspiracy researchers often suffer from conspiracism,
structural analysts often suffer from structuralism. The “conspiratorial” aspect
of the world’s political-economic dynamics is a minor yet critical ingredient.
Paying out $100 billion in quiet money to bury
disruptive technologies, while operating a global
surveillance network, is an impressive effort. To ignore those activities
because they do not leave a satisfying paper trail limits one’s perspective.
It is not easy to explore such issues: it takes courage, a love of the truth,
a willingness to sort through the chaff and the understanding that unless people
become involved in pursuing disruptive technologies, they will never be
made the offer they cannot refuse. Only those reaching
Oz’s Emerald City ever meet the wizard, but the journey can be extremely dangerous.

However,
vastly more important than organized suppression is how
humanity is its ready accomplice and victim, by either complacently denying it exists (Hitler
was right), eagerly doing the GCs’ dirty work for them, either consciously or by protecting their
self interest, or obsessing over those “conspiratorial” behaviors instead
of acknowledging our role and making the scarcity paradigm obsolete. Neither
structural analyses nor conspiracy theories can fully explain the phenomenon and
both suffer from the same weakness: making elite actions the cause of our problems
when they are merely a symptom (they are exploiting
a herd animal). Both focus outwardly, making the problem something outside
of us. Neither perspective encourages us to accept responsibility,
but plays us all as victims of elite machinations, whether they are the “unconscious”
actions of simply running the steeply hierarchical institutions of global civilization
or engaging in more “conspiratorial” activity.

Symptoms
and Causes, Palliatives and Cures

When a
cancer tumor manifests, the body’s most vulnerable
part has succumbed to unhealthy conditions. Attacking that weakest or “worst”
part is no solution. Feeding that “renegade” is the opposite approach. One approach
uses the carrot, and the other the stick. In the cancer
racket, the stick is also used to destroy the carrot approach. The cause
is not giving the cells what they need (or giving them poison), and the cure is
giving them what they need (or stop poisoning them). Virtually every orthodox
treatment in Western medicine for degenerative disease is a drug or surgical procedure
that suppresses symptoms and ignores causes. For those operating under today’s
Western medical paradigm, they cannot comprehend the cause. In addition,
because the medical racket is immensely lucrative, most medical practitioners
do not even want to comprehend a different paradigm, even when the evidence
of it stares them in the face.

Economics
is the study of humanity’s material wellbeing, and has generally been separated
into three parts: production, exchange and consumption. Most of what passes for
economics today is focused on the exchange aspect - i.e., who owns what. Today’s
“radical” economics from the left almost entirely ignores the energy issue. Nearly
all of today’s economic activism is focused on more equitably slicing up humanity’s
scarce economic pie, not making the pie a hundred times larger. With the pie
a hundred times larger, nobody will be fighting for their slice. In a world of
scarcity, who owns what becomes the overriding issue. In a world of abundance,
it does not matter. It would not take many people
to help an abundance paradigm appear, but they have to have their hearts in the right place and lay aside their scarcity-based conditioning.

The
GCs are addicted to power and primarily control humanity by keeping us mired in
economic scarcity. Wealth is a means to them, not an end. My partner was offered
a billion dollars because if free energy appeared on the global stage, economic
abundance could follow behind it and the GCs’ reign would be finished. Their
efforts to hold their clandestine empire together, on one level of understanding,
are ingenious. At a higher level of awareness, their efforts are delusional.

Potholes on
the Road to Free Energy and Abundance, and How to Avoid Them

The
greatest triumph of any indoctrination system is making anything existing outside
the dominant paradigm unimaginable. The reflexive objections formulated
regarding free energy are rooted in scarcity-based ideologies, and the most common
denials fit within these broad categories:

Capitalism:
“If free energy was possible, I should be able to buy a free energy device, because
capitalism always ensures that the best mousetrap prevails in the free market;
capitalism is the greatest economic system ever devised;”

American Nationalism:
“Free energy cannot be suppressed in our nation, which is history’s greatest;”

Scientism: “Free energy is contrary to the laws of physics, which comprise
the greatest set of rules ever devised to describe how the universe operates;”

Structuralism:
“The evidence of free energy suppression, if free energy was even possible, is
used in conspiracy theories, and can therefore be dismissed.”

The below approaches
have not worked so far, and seem to have little chance of succeeding.

Herding
people toward free energy under an ideological banner.That approach seeks the semi-sentient and is
easily defeated, if it does not self-destruct first, partly due to the self-interested.

The
inventor/capitalist/rich angel approach. Tinkering
inventors, raising money from investors or rich philanthropists, applying for
patents and developing products to sell – this was my initial
approach to the issue, and I learned many hard lessons. The old skins will
almost certainly not hold the new wine. The GCs have those avenues so controlled that only those with my
former partner’s incredible persistence can try that approach for long. The GCs
probably yawn when such attempts are mounted, idly wondering if the latest effort
will provide much of a challenge.

Beseeching
governments and other perceived power centers. Although
there is a power of sorts in Washington, D.C., it is subservient to far greater
powers. American presidents are merely mouthpieces.
Also, many attempts have been made to obtain the American government’s assistance
on free energy and related matters. Those doing so often end up dead (1,
2, 3, 4).
The very act of beseeching any authority on the free energy issue is giving
one’s power away, and people doing so have lost before they started. All politicians,
especially the prominent ones, are, as Fuller said, stooges
of the economic interests, and are no help. They primarily exist to provide
the illusion that the public’s interest is being attended to.

The geographical approach.
For more than twenty years, I have been regularly asked what nation may lie
beyond the GCs’ reach and has the right stuff to mount a free energy effort.
Everybody whose opinion I respect in these realms says that no place is beyond
their reach, and no place has enough of the “good people” to make a potentially
successful run at free energy, not in today’s environment. Maybe, just maybe,
a socially progressive place such as India’s Kerala state has a better chance
than in other places, but if a region is not technologically advanced, its chances
of mounting a free energy effort are reduced. Also, where the herd is most restless,
the shepherd is most vigilant. In all likelihood,
no place on earth is much more promising than anyplace else for making free energy
happen, not to the degree that free energy activists should all move there and
combine their efforts. The geographic approach may have some merit, but
I have never seen anybody have any success with it. I have long looked at “radical”
communities that have formed around the planet, and I have yet to see one that
even pursued economic abundance. As Fuller said, all Utopias proposed
until now have been based on shared austerity,
which will never work.

The
hero’s journey to free energy. Noble people have sacrificed
their lives to that approach (my former partner,
Steven Greer and some others), to little avail; somebody
might succeed, but the hero’s approach to free energy is suicidal. I observe
their efforts with awe, but it is usually agonizing to witness and their probability
of success is extremely slim. If there were one
hundred heroes like them and they combined their efforts, they could easily
do it, but humanity might not have one hundred of them.

Attempting to expose the GCs and their suppression of free energy and other disruptive technologies.
Such activism usually attempts to overcome the twin dynamics of clandestine
suppression and the public’s denial. While publicizing
evidence of suppression can be helpful, if activists survive the laborious
process of separating the wheat from the chaff, they subsequently spend their
time and energy in a futile attempt to wake the sleeping, and even then, are merely
exposing symptoms. Plenty of credible, solid information exists on the organized
suppression. People must possess an awakened heart and a love of the truth to
be reachable. Helping the awakening, or providing vital information that can
assist the awakening process, is where the opportunities seem to be.

The
USA’s Founding Fathers did not invent freedom,
but my nation is history’s richest - a status that may soon end. The USA owes
a huge debt to humanity (American Indian, Southeast Asians, Middle Eastern peoples, Latin Americans, Hawaiians,
etc.). In many ways, Americans are ideally situated to lead a global free energy
revolution, and in many ways, Americans are least suited for the task, partly
because we have turned vices into virtues and are history’s most brainwashed population. If only 1% of America’s effort
devoted to watching sporting events, soap operas and game shows was devoted to
simply pondering the free energy milieu, the energy issue would have been
permanently resolved long ago.

Helping free
energy and abundance-based paradigms appear could help pay America’s debt. Millions
of Americans believe that violence and coercion
are worthy means for attaining lofty goals. Those advocating violence, coercing
the elites, secrecy and violating others have yet to attain their enlightenment.
When they do, they can become a vitally important force.

There
is another reason to seek the high road to free energy and abundance: the zero
point field is an enigma; its source may be divine, and nobody on the physical
plane of existence may be allowed to regularly access it unless their intentions
are pure, as a kind of fail-safe. Tapping into that virtually unlimited source
of energy is perilous to those with base intentions. However, as Steven Greer
replies when given that caution, the worst elements of humanity already
possess those technologies. Amassing the world’s scarcest commodity, personal
integrity, to bring about an abundance-based reality is a paradox. That is
part of the conundrum.

Humanity may not be ready
to relinquish fear and scarcity and embrace love and abundance. Forcing it onto
humanity would be disastrous. It must be willingly accepted, with a whole heart
and mind. That is also part of the conundrum.

Many
scientists and technical types think they can run below
the GCs’ radar, researching in their labs, working
in secret, and so on. If they are ever productive in their workshops or labs,
they will come onto the radar, no matter how inconspicuous and innocuous
they think their efforts are. The more they are perceived as a “threat,” the
more active the suppression will be. Acknowledging the GCs’ technological superiority
and vigilance helps people understand how the land lies and what the viable solutions
may be. The GCs even deserve our sympathy. It is not easy to become emperor
of the universe.

The
Coming Paradigms

Free energy
can catalyze the transition to an abundance-based paradigm. It is doubtful
that anything else can do so, unless some mighty spiritual beings made their presence
undeniably felt. Contrasting scarcity-based and abundance-based paradigms can
be a useful exercise. The table below presents some of the contrasts.

Once
the obvious delusions are set aside, it may be necessary to gain some experience
which points toward the new paradigms. Experience may be necessary to even begin
the journey. Having a mystical orientation also appears to be a key.

I am attempting to develop a public discussion to help
abundance-based paradigms take root in human awareness. If you can help advance
that discussion, you are invited to assist.

Footnotes

[1] A relative of mine was a CIA contract agent. With his death, I can reveal
some of his activities. His publicly known career (he was famous long ago) was
unrelated to his cloak-and-dagger secret life, but his fame led to the CIA’s recruiting
efforts. Unlike Ralph McGehee, who was a civil servant
with a salary and pension, the CIA’s contract agents are not on the official payroll,
partly so their activities could not be traced to the USA’s government if their
cover was blown, as has been revealed by others.
My relative was recruited with the macho/patriot/James Bond pitch. However, that
life is not glamorous, which was related to his drinking himself to death, dying
of congestive heart failure at a relatively young age.

As
with Lee Harvey Oswald, my relative belonged to
a talent pool used for general covert action purposes, whether their handlers
were CIA employees or private interests. My relative was placed on a household
name American diplomat’s secret team. My relative almost tried recruiting me
into the “business.” I was fortunate to have never received the pitch (even though
they may have taken "no" for an answer, and even though I was a committed pacifist,
I was still young and naïve and am not sure how it would have turned out; I am
happy that I never had to deal with a pitch to join the team). He never knew
that I knew about his secret life. That diplomat he served had no official position
with the USA’s government when he considered recruiting me. His secret life not
only contributed to his early death, but he had a checkered public career because
he was regularly being prevailed upon to play covert action soldier. He would
get the call and play spy for weeks, often losing his job when he returned home.
As a result, he bounced from job to job, losing them largely due to his frequent
unexplained absences (he would play the “I am sick” game and had others cover
for him, but weeks of being “sick” did not work very often). He also burned through
several marriages, partly due to his secret life. His handlers would give him
money after losing his jobs, but it was never all that much and he was regularly
destitute. He became a barfly. He killed his own people when they were suspected
double agents, and had a great deal of blood on his hands. I doubt that he ever
realized the evil that he was involved with, as with most soldiers. He spoke
of that diplomat in intimate and reverential tones. He was used up and tossed
aside when he outlived his usefulness. He died in his home, alone, with his body
not discovered for more than a week.

[2] When I waswith Dennis Lee in the 1980s, he referred to those who offered us a billion dollars to go away as the “Big
Boys.” He
also used it to describe those behind other activities, although they may have
not been the same people.When operating
from the shadows is standard operating procedure, it is difficult to know who
the players are.The term seemed
apt and I have used it ever since.Over
the years, however, some have objected to the term, perhaps because it might seem
too flippant.Steven
Greer calls the same people a “rogue group” and “Godzilla.”That group does not have a publicly known name.Conspiracy researchers might call them the “Illuminati,” but rank-and-file
members of the elite groups found in conspiratorial
literature are vaguely aware, if aware at all, of that rogue group.There may indeed be several competing hyper-elite groups; investigator
Jon Rappoport says that eight
cartels control the world: money, military, intelligence, energy, media, medical,
and organized religion.I survived
the energy cartel’s efforts, have seen plenty of evidence of the medical
cartel’s machinations, have seen how the media operates
and have seen strange evidence of what may happen in
the banking world, but but my understanding is that the rogue group sits in
the driver’s seat.

That
rogue group’s cloak-and-dagger tactics can be sophisticated, but many groups play
similar games. I cannot say with certainty that Bill the
BPA Hit Man worked for that rogue group. He worked for the Bonneville Power
Administration when he attacked Dennis’s company, and after that he posed as a
“Tesla researcher,” but he might have been working
for interests residing somewhere down the food chain from the rogue group. The
rogue group is also fractured, and some of its disenchanted members most likely
gave my friend an exotic technology show.
There appears to be enough cohesion at the global level that the term “Global
Controllers” (or “GCs”) can be used to describe them, although some of what I
have encountered may not have been perpetrated by Greer’s rogue group, but by
more local interests. For this essay, and I might make the term standard in my
site one day, I will use the term “global controllers,” (“GCs”) to describe them,
although I believe that “Big Boys” also adequately conveys the idea.

An
Epilogue - Peeling the Free Energy Onion

Developing
an understanding of the free energy milieu can be like peeling an onion. Brian
O’Leary aptly once used a similar analogy.

It took most of a lifetime to peel those layers, and
anybody sincerely attempting to understand the free energy milieu will assuredly
get in far deeper than initially intended. It is not a subject for superficial
study. If people move past denial of the reality surrounding free energy efforts,
which is a mixture of some well-intended people, pretenders and the deluded,
the greedy, the gullible, the naïve, various predators and gatekeepers and, once
in a great while, people with the goods who have yet to be made
the offer they cannot refuse, all too often people want to rush out and “make
it happen.” I have spent long years in futile attempts to attract various groups
to this website’s material. Some people I dissuade from taking an interest in this website’s
material, while various other groups I have given up on, after numerous, fruitless interactions.
In many instances, I was attacked for my trouble.

I
have encountered fellow travelers whose efforts were not directed toward free
energy, but they nevertheless achieved radical understandings. They were usually
overgrown Boy Scouts who believed in their stated mission, and simply doing
their jobs began their odysseys. Following their hearts and consciences led
them there. Examples include Ralph McGehee, Rodney
Stich and Gary Wean. They are probably members
of Mark Twain’s one-in-ten-thousand morally courageous, but I no
longer seek the hundred heroes of free energy.
I seek those whose hearts, minds and eyes are open, but I am not asking anybody
to risk their lives like those men did.

You
might be a member of a group that I gave up on, but if you spend the time and
effort needed to begin comprehending the free energy milieu, you will be unusual.
I advise against introducing your colleagues to this site’s material, hoping to
see their eyes light up in comprehension, unless you know them very well
or you can handle hostility and ostracism, and they cannot get you fired from
your job. Many relationships have ended over this site’s material, as people
introduced it to what they thought were their “hip” colleagues, friends and family
members. I have seen careers end when people introduced their colleagues
to the subject matter contained on this website.

Scientists
and inventors regularly approach me, either challenging me on the reality of free
energy or wanting to pursue it. They often want to work in their labs and workshops
on free energy devices, thinking that they can quietly research free energy technology, and ask me to point
them toward promising technology. While I provide suggestions (1,
2), they also frighten me. I try to help them understand
where they are heading, and I almost always receive disbelief in return, similar
to the knights meeting the guard rabbit in Monty Python’s
Holy Grail. I am not trying to attract the interest of those scientists and inventors.

While
it is not easy to attend a demonstration of a working free energy device, other
paradigm-busting demonstrations are relatively easy to witness.
People have to crawl before they walk, walk before they run, run before they leap,
and few will fly. I am not trying to attract the attention of scientists that
leave their armchairs only to witness a free energy
machine in action (or want it placed in their laps), or else stay firmly rooted
in their scientism. In today’s world, the truth must be sought.

The most common reaction to free
energy is denial, which is usually a fear-based reaction.
The second most common reaction is asking for a free energy machine to be delivered
to one’s home. Countless people have offered to be a “showcase”
installation. What might be in third place is another fear-based reaction: with
free energy, humanity would quickly destroy the planet.

Bringing free energy to humanity might be the most difficult
task on earth. The forces arrayed against it are immense, with humanity’s inertia
the greatest factor. Organized suppression accounts for perhaps 10% of why
humanity does not enjoy the benefits of free energy today.

Several
analogies can be used for describing the free energy journey and those offering
to be a showcase installation. In the past, I have likened the free energy and
abundance journey to climbing a mountain or traveling to distant star systems,
with the gravity wells of scarcity-based ideologies among the most common hazards,
but in this essay I will use another imperfect analogy.

The
free energy journey is like running a marathon with a huge burden strapped to
your back, and the route’s early miles are not lined with cheering well-wishers.
In fact, few know that a marathon is occurring. Those early miles pass
by dark alleys and through muddy puddles, with predators lurking around every
corner. Some of your fellow marathoners simply disappear, you pass by some lying
in pools of blood and, once in awhile, a bullet whizzes past your head, maybe
grazing you.

If you survive the early miles,
then it becomes interesting. A few may appear to cheer you on, but most will
gawk in dazed wonder, with little comprehension of what they are witnessing.
Many will try enticing you away to a different race, will bribe you to stop, will
beg for money, will ask you to help remodel their home, and so forth. There are
no bathrooms along the way or places to rest, and your only water is carried on
your back. The further you travel, the more surreal the scenery becomes. Bystanders
will ask to climb onto your back for a free ride. Others do not even ask, but
try to scramble atop you. In the early miles, the predators are often street-corner
thugs, but as you progress, they become more sophisticated. Soon, policemen step
into your path, demanding a bribe for allowing you to continue. If you survive
those obstacles, a crowd begins to form, attracted by the spectacle, and then
the mayor steps into your way, demanding that you stop. If the mayor fails, the
governor is next, followed by the president, all saying that they act in the “public’s
interest” to stop you. If you survive those miles, non-descript men in grey suits
begin appearing, asking you to stop, and waving cash in your face. The further
you progress, the higher their offers become. Then, you are actively dodging
bullets that seem to come from nowhere. During the last mile, there is enough
public attention that the bullets stop and, in the last few hundred yards, people
begin running alongside you, offering to help you cross the finish line. Those
are the people offering to be a showcase installation,
and their motivation may be similar to Rosie Ruiz’s.

You
do not need help near the finish line. You need help way back at the beginning,
when few even know that a marathon is being run, when most do not survive the
early obstacles and the pretenders quickly tire and quit. If people lined the
early miles, simply watching the race and maybe offering a drink, the runners
would stand a far better chance, and instead of one-in-a-thousand getting to the
25th mile, maybe one-in-fifty would, and would increase the chances
of somebody finishing. Nobody has yet crossed that line, and the ideal is all
of us crossing it together, maybe following the leader, but perhaps just from
our unity of purpose, with no leader. Assembling witnesses for the early miles
is what my site and public interactions attempt to accomplish. Being an early-race
witness is not sexy or lucrative, and no cameras will take your picture, but it
could make the difference. I am asking people to become aware that the
marathon is taking place, and maybe some of us can amble over and watch. With
a knowledgeable and caring audience, the predators may slink away and the others
will behave better. Maybe some from that audience will desire to join the race,
but I ask that of nobody, and am finished with running myself.

Experience
may be the only teacher, but surviving the process of gaining experience
in the free energy milieu is not easy. I seek an audience that has already peeled
some layers. The most promising audience is comprised of those who have laid
aside some of their scarcity-based conditioning, or at
least realize that it is scarcity-based conditioning, and can refrain from
making the standard reflexive objections to free energy.
I seek to help form a nugget of sentience, the kind that begins with an awakened
heart. That nugget will have an abiding interest in the welfare of humanity and
the planet, and even looks beyond free energy to what
can be.

Below is a chart
that describes various layers of the free energy onion. People can reside in
more than one layer at the same time. There are other ways to slice the onion
and other layers can be catalogued, but those listed below I am familiar with,
and some intimately.

Layers
of the Free Energy Onion

Level

Reaction to Free
Energy

Mental/Experiential
Level

Awareness
of Energy Dynamics

Levels of Unawareness/Denial

0

Complete unawareness of free energy

Self-centered ideologies, if any

“Middle Eastern genocide
is OK; raping the environment (somebody else’s, of course) is OK, as long as I
can fill my gas tank and stomach. I do not care about anything else.”

0

Complete unawareness of free energy

Have never encountered the idea, partly due to media and
doctrinal systems, but can also be due to a lack of desire to escape media and
doctrinal systems

“I work for the GCs, and develop/use free energy technology.
Neat stuff.” Or, “I work for the GCs and derail free
energy efforts using some prodigious resources at my disposal. This job pays
great.” Or, “I am one of the GCs, and free energy is the biggest toy in
my bag of tricks, and keeping it from public awareness keeps me on top of the
world.”

“We used free energy technology until we learned the lessons
of physical reality and graduated to other planes of existence. Mastering free energy was a key aspect of our
ethical/spiritual/technological development.”